Neutral monism is the view that physical and mental are a part of the same substance that is neither physical nor mental.

I think this is a somewhat intuitive view. When we have two things which we know interact, but are two totally different entities, there is always some intermediate substance which they have in common. Sunlight and metal interact, even though metal is totally different than light. Yet they interact due to something in common that is neither metal nor light. This is true for practically everything. Things interact because they are a part of some other neutral substance.

Likewise, if we have the mind and physical which interact, yet seem to be two entirely different things, might it be reasonable prima facie to accept neutral monism?

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,

That said, from my understanding of the concept of spirit, it would be that stuff that all these phenomena arise from. It's practically the same as the concept of energy. The thing is, people often times don't think of certain phenomina as being "physical", despite the fact that they have clear causal connections. Being tied to causality, the realm of the mind is intrinsically physical.

Spirit flows through all of creation, and there are many "spirits", but The Holy Spirit is something to be distinguished from created things, it is uncreated. Spirits are created things, spirit is not a created thing.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,

At 4/11/2016 3:03:45 AM, n7 wrote:Neutral monism is the view that physical and mental are a part of the same substance that is neither physical nor mental.

Then why are they called physical and mental if the substance is neither physical or mental? This sounds as if its attempting a straw man or equivocation of how those two words are defined.

I think this is a somewhat intuitive view. When we have two things which we know interact, but are two totally different entities, there is always some intermediate substance which they have in common. Sunlight and metal interact, even though metal is totally different than light. Yet they interact due to something in common that is neither metal nor light. This is true for practically everything. Things interact because they are a part of some other neutral substance.

This seems ambiguously stated. Exactly what do you mean by "interact"? And technically light has properties of matter but not necessarily considered to be matter. Metal of course does, so they are not "totally different". They just aren't exactly the same.

Likewise, if we have the mind and physical which interact, yet seem to be two entirely different things, might it be reasonable prima facie to accept neutral monism?

Prove the "mind" interacts with anything physical and show me the evidence of it doing so.A lot of this seems like an equivocation fallacy of what you are saying interact means. But I'm stoned so I would take my interpretation as rudimental based solely on boredom.

At 4/11/2016 3:03:45 AM, n7 wrote:Neutral monism is the view that physical and mental are a part of the same substance that is neither physical nor mental.

I think this is a somewhat intuitive view. When we have two things which we know interact, but are two totally different entities, there is always some intermediate substance which they have in common. Sunlight and metal interact, even though metal is totally different than light. Yet they interact due to something in common that is neither metal nor light. This is true for practically everything. Things interact because they are a part of some other neutral substance.

Likewise, if we have the mind and physical which interact, yet seem to be two entirely different things, might it be reasonable prima facie to accept neutral monism?

Na if your view is the example used, then you would be incorrect. The metal experiences the light from the sun but the sun (or source of light) does not experience anything of or from the metal. But the mind experiences the body or physical and the physical experiences the mind could be body movement could be the physical material used to build a house, and the mind experiences the exercise of building the house and all it takes to think it through.

But mind and physical are not the same. Physical in and of itself is inert in this respect and responds to its environment. Gravity for example. But mind is deliberate guiding the physical, and can in some cases create its own environment for its dwelling place. Two completely different entities. Hence mind uses physical where as physical has no power in that respect. And if you want to go there on the body, that it need no mind, one could look at it that way but there is no cell if it has no instruction to be. Hence the instructions in the cell makes the physical do something other than what it would otherwise be or do without the power the instructions has to make the physical perform as a cell.

At 4/11/2016 3:03:45 AM, n7 wrote:Neutral monism is the view that physical and mental are a part of the same substance that is neither physical nor mental.

I think this is a somewhat intuitive view. When we have two things which we know interact, but are two totally different entities, there is always some intermediate substance which they have in common. Sunlight and metal interact, even though metal is totally different than light. Yet they interact due to something in common that is neither metal nor light. This is true for practically everything. Things interact because they are a part of some other neutral substance.

Likewise, if we have the mind and physical which interact, yet seem to be two entirely different things, might it be reasonable prima facie to accept neutral monism?

Na if your view is the example used, then you would be incorrect. The metal experiences the light from the sun but the sun (or source of light) does not experience anything of or from the metal. But the mind experiences the body or physical and the physical experiences the mind could be body movement could be the physical material used to build a house, and the mind experiences the exercise of building the house and all it takes to think it through.

That's not really a meaningful difference. All analogies break down somewhere and my main point still gets across.

But mind and physical are not the same. Physical in and of itself is inert in this respect and responds to its environment. Gravity for example. But mind is deliberate guiding the physical, and can in some cases create its own environment for its dwelling place. Two completely different entities. Hence mind uses physical where as physical has no power in that respect. And if you want to go there on the body, that it need no mind, one could look at it that way but there is no cell if it has no instruction to be. Hence the instructions in the cell makes the physical do something other than what it would otherwise be or do without the power the instructions has to make the physical perform as a cell.

This is irrelevant and doesn't contradict neutral monism. You are trying to refute physicalism, which neutral monism doesn't accept.

At 4/11/2016 3:03:45 AM, n7 wrote:Neutral monism is the view that physical and mental are a part of the same substance that is neither physical nor mental.

I think this is a somewhat intuitive view. When we have two things which we know interact, but are two totally different entities, there is always some intermediate substance which they have in common. Sunlight and metal interact, even though metal is totally different than light. Yet they interact due to something in common that is neither metal nor light. This is true for practically everything. Things interact because they are a part of some other neutral substance.

Likewise, if we have the mind and physical which interact, yet seem to be two entirely different things, might it be reasonable prima facie to accept neutral monism?

Na if your view is the example used, then you would be incorrect. The metal experiences the light from the sun but the sun (or source of light) does not experience anything of or from the metal. But the mind experiences the body or physical and the physical experiences the mind could be body movement could be the physical material used to build a house, and the mind experiences the exercise of building the house and all it takes to think it through.

That's not really a meaningful difference. All analogies break down somewhere and my main point still gets across.

But mind and physical are not the same. Physical in and of itself is inert in this respect and responds to its environment. Gravity for example. But mind is deliberate guiding the physical, and can in some cases create its own environment for its dwelling place. Two completely different entities. Hence mind uses physical where as physical has no power in that respect. And if you want to go there on the body, that it need no mind, one could look at it that way but there is no cell if it has no instruction to be. Hence the instructions in the cell makes the physical do something other than what it would otherwise be or do without the power the instructions has to make the physical perform as a cell.

This is irrelevant and doesn't contradict neutral monism. You are trying to refute physicalism, which neutral monism doesn't accept.

really? isn't the basic precept In philosophy of mind, neutral monism is the view that the mental and the physical are two ways of organizing or describing the same elements, which are themselves "neutral", that is, neither physical nor mental. This view denies that the mental and the physical are two fundamentally different things.

whether that is similar to physicalism or not doesn't matter does it? and just like another poster here said it depends on what one sees a "mind" is. therefore the whole of it sounds like an attempt to say nothing of anything.

I mean what genius thought to make a same but different scenario out of elements used for more than one purpose, and give it an ism? that's like making a brain fart philosophy out of the drive train in your car and the body of the car whereas the two different uses of steel are now to be contemplated. are they the same or are they different? physical is physical but mind is mind because it has the power to guide the physical and is not essentially physical but instruction fulfilled in the physical.

if that don't fit your molded, so what.

and yes your example sucks, if you must insist, and yes I know I'm not a nice warm and fuzzy person. besides, its your problem to prove your view is correct, not mine.

At 4/11/2016 3:03:45 AM, n7 wrote:Neutral monism is the view that physical and mental are a part of the same substance that is neither physical nor mental.

I think this is a somewhat intuitive view. When we have two things which we know interact, but are two totally different entities, there is always some intermediate substance which they have in common. Sunlight and metal interact, even though metal is totally different than light. Yet they interact due to something in common that is neither metal nor light. This is true for practically everything. Things interact because they are a part of some other neutral substance.

Likewise, if we have the mind and physical which interact, yet seem to be two entirely different things, might it be reasonable prima facie to accept neutral monism?

Na if your view is the example used, then you would be incorrect. The metal experiences the light from the sun but the sun (or source of light) does not experience anything of or from the metal. But the mind experiences the body or physical and the physical experiences the mind could be body movement could be the physical material used to build a house, and the mind experiences the exercise of building the house and all it takes to think it through.

That's not really a meaningful difference. All analogies break down somewhere and my main point still gets across.

But mind and physical are not the same. Physical in and of itself is inert in this respect and responds to its environment. Gravity for example. But mind is deliberate guiding the physical, and can in some cases create its own environment for its dwelling place. Two completely different entities. Hence mind uses physical where as physical has no power in that respect. And if you want to go there on the body, that it need no mind, one could look at it that way but there is no cell if it has no instruction to be. Hence the instructions in the cell makes the physical do something other than what it would otherwise be or do without the power the instructions has to make the physical perform as a cell.

This is irrelevant and doesn't contradict neutral monism. You are trying to refute physicalism, which neutral monism doesn't accept.

really? isn't the basic precept In philosophy of mind, neutral monism is the view that the mental and the physical are two ways of organizing or describing the same elements, which are themselves "neutral", that is, neither physical nor mental. This view denies that the mental and the physical are two fundamentally different things.

Yes, so why does it matter if the mind isn't the physical? Water isn't glass, but they are both features of the same substance. Same with neutral monism. Arguing that water isn't glass doesn't refute atomism.

whether that is similar to physicalism or not doesn't matter does it? and just like another poster here said it depends on what one sees a "mind" is. therefore the whole of it sounds like an attempt to say nothing of anything.

It's not similar to physicalism, it matters because you would misunderstand my position if you think so. Certainly properly understanding a position matters doesn't it? All it depends on is seeing the mind as different than physical properties. Which is established prima facie.

I mean what genius thought to make a same but different scenario out of elements used for more than one purpose, and give it an ism? that's like making a brain fart philosophy out of the drive train in your car and the body of the car whereas the two different uses of steel are now to be contemplated. are they the same or are they different? physical is physical but mind is mind because it has the power to guide the physical and is not essentially physical but instruction fulfilled in the physical.

Idiots like Bertrand Russell, William James, and Ernst Mach. Idiots who understand that neither physicalism nor dualism is sufficient to explain the properties of the mind.

if that don't fit your molded, so what.

and yes your example sucks, if you must insist, and yes I know I'm not a nice warm and fuzzy person. besides, its your problem to prove your view is correct, not mine.

At 4/11/2016 3:03:45 AM, n7 wrote:Neutral monism is the view that physical and mental are a part of the same substance that is neither physical nor mental.

I think this is a somewhat intuitive view. When we have two things which we know interact, but are two totally different entities, there is always some intermediate substance which they have in common. Sunlight and metal interact, even though metal is totally different than light. Yet they interact due to something in common that is neither metal nor light. This is true for practically everything. Things interact because they are a part of some other neutral substance.

Likewise, if we have the mind and physical which interact, yet seem to be two entirely different things, might it be reasonable prima facie to accept neutral monism?

Na if your view is the example used, then you would be incorrect. The metal experiences the light from the sun but the sun (or source of light) does not experience anything of or from the metal. But the mind experiences the body or physical and the physical experiences the mind could be body movement could be the physical material used to build a house, and the mind experiences the exercise of building the house and all it takes to think it through.

The things that are interacting with each other are the sunlight and the metal. The sunlight "experiences" the metal to the same extent that the metal "experiences" the sunlight, if by "experience" you mean "physically interact". I don't know why you bring the light source into the equation.

But mind and physical are not the same. Physical in and of itself is inert in this respect and responds to its environment. Gravity for example. But mind is deliberate guiding the physical, and can in some cases create its own environment for its dwelling place. Two completely different entities. Hence mind uses physical where as physical has no power in that respect. And if you want to go there on the body, that it need no mind, one could look at it that way but there is no cell if it has no instruction to be. Hence the instructions in the cell makes the physical do something other than what it would otherwise be or do without the power the instructions has to make the physical perform as a cell.

Neutral Monism does not assume that the mind and the physical have no differences, it just says that the mental and physical sides of reality are just two aspects of the same substance, and that interaction between them reflects interaction between this neutral "stuff" of which mind and matter are just mirror images.

Thoughts, either sub-conscious or conscious, are causally linked to the objective world.

Therefore, thoughts are part of the physical realm, as physics is the science of causality.

I believe the definition that is being used for "physical" is faulty.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,

At 4/11/2016 3:03:45 AM, n7 wrote:Neutral monism is the view that physical and mental are a part of the same substance that is neither physical nor mental.

I think this is a somewhat intuitive view. When we have two things which we know interact, but are two totally different entities, there is always some intermediate substance which they have in common. Sunlight and metal interact, even though metal is totally different than light. Yet they interact due to something in common that is neither metal nor light. This is true for practically everything. Things interact because they are a part of some other neutral substance.

Likewise, if we have the mind and physical which interact, yet seem to be two entirely different things, might it be reasonable prima facie to accept neutral monism?

At 4/11/2016 3:03:45 AM, n7 wrote:Neutral monism is the view that physical and mental are a part of the same substance that is neither physical nor mental.

I think this is a somewhat intuitive view. When we have two things which we know interact, but are two totally different entities, there is always some intermediate substance which they have in common. Sunlight and metal interact, even though metal is totally different than light. Yet they interact due to something in common that is neither metal nor light. This is true for practically everything. Things interact because they are a part of some other neutral substance.

Likewise, if we have the mind and physical which interact, yet seem to be two entirely different things, might it be reasonable prima facie to accept neutral monism?

Na if your view is the example used, then you would be incorrect. The metal experiences the light from the sun but the sun (or source of light) does not experience anything of or from the metal. But the mind experiences the body or physical and the physical experiences the mind could be body movement could be the physical material used to build a house, and the mind experiences the exercise of building the house and all it takes to think it through.

The things that are interacting with each other are the sunlight and the metal. The sunlight "experiences" the metal to the same extent that the metal "experiences" the sunlight, if by "experience" you mean "physically interact". I don't know why you bring the light source into the equation.

thee sun doesn't experience the metal but the mind does experience the physical of which it has the power to respond to willingly or voluntarily and make the physical respond to it. not the same as the sun/metal.

But mind and physical are not the same. Physical in and of itself is inert in this respect and responds to its environment. Gravity for example. But mind is deliberate guiding the physical, and can in some cases create its own environment for its dwelling place. Two completely different entities. Hence mind uses physical where as physical has no power in that respect. And if you want to go there on the body, that it need no mind, one could look at it that way but there is no cell if it has no instruction to be. Hence the instructions in the cell makes the physical do something other than what it would otherwise be or do without the power the instructions has to make the physical perform as a cell.

Neutral Monism does not assume that the mind and the physical have no differences, it just says that the mental and physical sides of reality are just two aspects of the same substance, and that interaction between them reflects interaction between this neutral "stuff" of which mind and matter are just mirror images.

again, not my job to argue for Neutral Monism, or it's use in reasoning. considering this is a site set aside for "debate".

also this definition would have to be more arcuate then your; In philosophy of mind, neutral monism is the view that the mental and the physical are two ways of organizing or describing the same elements, which are themselves "neutral", that is, neither physical nor mental. This view denies that the mental and the physical are two fundamentally different things.

and note this part or conclusion of that definition

This view denies that the mental and the physical are two fundamentally different things.

At 4/11/2016 3:03:45 AM, n7 wrote:Neutral monism is the view that physical and mental are a part of the same substance that is neither physical nor mental.

I think this is a somewhat intuitive view. When we have two things which we know interact, but are two totally different entities, there is always some intermediate substance which they have in common. Sunlight and metal interact, even though metal is totally different than light. Yet they interact due to something in common that is neither metal nor light. This is true for practically everything. Things interact because they are a part of some other neutral substance.

Likewise, if we have the mind and physical which interact, yet seem to be two entirely different things, might it be reasonable prima facie to accept neutral monism?

Spinoza proved this, as did Russell - dualism is clearly not even worth discussing imo

"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

At 4/11/2016 3:03:45 AM, n7 wrote:Neutral monism is the view that physical and mental are a part of the same substance that is neither physical nor mental.

I think this is a somewhat intuitive view. When we have two things which we know interact, but are two totally different entities, there is always some intermediate substance which they have in common. Sunlight and metal interact, even though metal is totally different than light. Yet they interact due to something in common that is neither metal nor light. This is true for practically everything. Things interact because they are a part of some other neutral substance.

Likewise, if we have the mind and physical which interact, yet seem to be two entirely different things, might it be reasonable prima facie to accept neutral monism?

Spinoza proved this, as did Russell - dualism is clearly not even worth discussing imo

I know Russell liked this view. But I thought Spinoza was an idealistic Panentheist.

At 4/11/2016 3:03:45 AM, n7 wrote:Neutral monism is the view that physical and mental are a part of the same substance that is neither physical nor mental.

I think this is a somewhat intuitive view. When we have two things which we know interact, but are two totally different entities, there is always some intermediate substance which they have in common. Sunlight and metal interact, even though metal is totally different than light. Yet they interact due to something in common that is neither metal nor light. This is true for practically everything. Things interact because they are a part of some other neutral substance.

Likewise, if we have the mind and physical which interact, yet seem to be two entirely different things, might it be reasonable prima facie to accept neutral monism?

Spinoza proved this, as did Russell - dualism is clearly not even worth discussing imo

I know Russell liked this view. But I thought Spinoza was an idealistic Panentheist.

He's better described as a dual-aspect/neutral monist, I feel. He believed that there was one infinite substance which subsumes all, and thought & extension and so on are merely manifestations of the one substance.

"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"